There are two ways to look at I-985, Tim Eyman's latest, this time on "traffic congestion."
1) As a statement to Olympia - they of few transportation solutions - it is a delightful middle finger from the populace to the Establishment.
2) As actual transportation policy, well, then you're on the receiving end of that middle finger.
The key components:
- Open up HOV lanes in "nonpeak" hours outside 6-9 am and 3-6 pm. Problem: there are a number of major traffic corridors where "peak" congestion does not conform to those hours. The state should move more aggressively to open up certain HOV lanes outside of peak hours (such as been done on I-90 east of Bellevue). The initiative, however, is trying to solve a problem with a blunt solution to a problem requiring a precise answer. Ultimately this move won't actually reduce traffic congestion where it actually exists...despite the populist appeal.
- Requires cities and counties to synchronize lights on "heavily traveled" major arterials. Good idea. But why should the state mandate something to local governments without paying for it? It's not as if local governments are swimming in cash these days. More importantly, this is a task for local elected officials to hear from their constituents and act upon. Any state mandates on this topic should be accompanied by state funding.
- Confiscates ticket receipts from local red light cameras and sends them to Olympia. Again, why the need for the state to intrude on local government in this manner?
Red light cameras are understandably construed at times to be money machines for local governments. They're also often set up for the specific purpose of public safety and traffic flow, both of which are in the public interest. Without even the money to pay for them, local governments that choose to utilize them won't maintain them. Eyman says as much in his traveling sales pitch on the initiative.
Support red light cameras or hate them, this initiative is an exceptionally peculiar way to deal with them...even before one gets to the local control issue.
- Places 15% of the sales tax revenue collected from the sale of motor vehicles into a "Reduce Traffic Congestion Account." Sounds nice. But that would be under $300 million in funding every two years to address a backlog of roads projects on the magnitude of tens of billions of dollars statewide (there's a reason the roads component of Prop 1 - "Roads & Transit" - was so big last year).
Bluntly, Eyman is playing around on the margins here. Not only with the comparative pittance of the "Reduce Traffic Congestion Account," but with the bulk of the rest of the initiative.
Meanwhile, Eyman claims I-985 is based on a Brian Sonntag performance audit on traffic congestion. Former WSDOT head Doug MacDonald has been a one-man traveling road show explaining that just isn't the case. Thus, the initiative turns out to be more of a collection of ideas from Tim Eyman than from a state performance audit. Given Eyman's track record on initiatives not involving controversial taxes or direct accountability for government, there are a number of reasons to be skeptical of I-985's actual value. Finally, conservatives in particular should be troubled by the reliance on state government to tell local governments how to handle local issues (without any money to make that happen).
I'm voting no on 985.
P.S. I'm also voting no on Sound Transit's Prop 1., which will surprise some longtime readers. More on that later.
Posted by Eric Earling at October 26, 2008 07:49 PM | Email ThisNow care to explain how Dino is going to fund his transportation plan with no taxes or tolls?
Posted by: Rank Stranger on October 26, 2008 08:24 PMNot allowing cities to use red light cameras until they synchronize traffic signals.
Posted by: Vince on October 26, 2008 08:29 PM
Every transportation expert I've listened to, regardless of party, has explained how bad this is for the state.
I've supported Eyeman in the past by voting for a couple of his initiatives but he should man up and pull this. Saying Eff U to the state govt by sticking that middle finger up all our asses is the wrong way to go about this.
Posted by: MrRcguy on October 26, 2008 09:05 PMAnd your argument for the carpool lanes is poor. There's nothing preventing us from making slight tweaks to certain key HOV lanes, like the 520 approach on the Eastside. The vast majority of the lanes go wasted during non-peak hours. Even the Peoples Republic of Portland removed the HOV approach to the I-5 bridge and it worked to calm traffic.
And as for synchronizing lights. How about our city governments do something useful with their tax dollars? Wanna bet you could find some ridiculous waste in each city that could be dropped so that money could be freed up for a light synchronization project? The public wants better use of existing funds.
The point is simply that Olympia is not doing their job.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 26, 2008 09:14 PMI have a number of red light cameras near where I live in Lynnwood. To my knowledge all of them either have a public safety or serious traffic flow issue that accompanies them. Is that system perfect? No. But I don't see the need for an initiative to hijack the money from those tickets and send it to Olympia (who doesn't have the best record of using money as of late).
On the carpool lanes, I'm not arguing against "slight tweaks" as you say. I support that 100%. I don't see Eyman's definition of "peak" hours and his application to all HOV lanes, regardless of circumstance, as being productive though.
Lastly, on the synchronizing lights, some local governments are pretty good at this of late (Seattle actually), some aren't (the Snohomish County Council being sadly belated in dealing with the horrific arterial of 164th St in my neck of the woods). But why a mandate in state law to make them do it with local funding?
I thought we were against that as conservatives.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 26, 2008 09:27 PMSo many inaccuracies, so little time:
It is a fact that Olympia pays more attention to issues when the voters approve them at the ballot box. Lower class sizes, higher teacher pay, reduced car tabs, limits on property taxes: we never get everything we vote for, but elected officials try harder when the voters illustrate that they care enough about an issue to approve it with an initiative.
This year�s �Reduce Traffic Congestion Initiative� I-985 is a no-new-taxes transportation reform proposal meant to get Olympia focused on this critical issue.
Making our transportation system work better needs to be a priority because our state is grinding to a halt � that increases citizens� time and frustration on the road, slows down the growth of our economy, lowers take-home pay, kills jobs, and reduces tax revenue to state and local governments.
There is no doubt that we can do better with what we already have. Clearing out accidents faster, requiring all 281 cities and 39 counties to optimize traffic flow by installing state-of-the-art traffic light synchronization technology, opening carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours, just as other cities do: these policies will increase traffic flow for everyone. They�re not going to eliminate our state�s traffic congestion problem, but they will make things better and prod Olympia to do a better job on transportation.
I-985�s effective traffic flow policies are relatively inexpensive, but they do cost money. But rather than demanding more from taxpayers, I-985 demands that Olympia spend more effectively the money they�re already taking from us. I-985 doesn�t raise taxes one penny, instead it dedicates a small portion of the existing state sales tax from the purchase of new and used vehicles, the profits from red light cameras, and revenue previously spent for art on transportation projects toward funding I-985�s policies.
How should the government adapt to I-985�s $150 million per year dedication of existing revenue?
Under voter-approved Initiative 900, State Auditor Brian Sonntag, a Democrat, has completed 13 audits so far, made 496 recommendations, and identified $3.5 billion in potential savings. Three and half billion dollars. If Olympia stops ignoring his growing list of recommendations and starts implementing them instead, not only will they cover the miniscule fiscal impact of I-985, but they�ll go a long way toward helping the Legislature close the upcoming $3.2 billion budget deficit.
When the Olympian newspaper endorsed I-985, they wrote: �The Olympian's editorial board recommends a �yes� vote based in large part on the message it sends to lawmakers: Comprehensive solutions to the congestion problem must be found. ... This initiative is about legislative inaction. Every ignored performance audit is a potential initiative.�
Our primary motivation for I-985 is to show Olympia that neither the average taxpayer nor our state�s struggling economy can afford higher taxes right now; instead government must prioritize and spend more effectively the money they�re already taking from us. Remember, Auditor Sonntag has identified $3.5 billion in savings.
Opponents� proposals force taxpayers to pay more � I-985 forces Olympia to spend existing revenues more effectively.
Washington is the 5th highest taxed state in the nation � I-985 keeps us from hitting #1.
Taxpayers are tapped out. Let�s tell Olympia: don�t take more from taxpayers, adopt Sonntag�s growing list of audit recommendations and reform government instead. Vote �Yes� on I-985.
RE: Photo Red companies top anti-985 donors, they deny profit motive
"Photo Red companies top anti-985 donors" reads the jump on Friday's homepage of the Spokesman Review. Over 1/4 of the total money raised from I-985's opponents ($160,000) has come from a red light camera company: Signal Electric $40,000 so far. "Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions" has donated $10,000 so far.
But their political contributions to the No campaign weren't business-related; they contributed for altruistic reasons.
As the story notes: "Jerry Vosberg, vice president of Signal Electric, said the company's $40,000 contribution was not motivated by the potential of lost profit."
The same selfless reason explains the other contribution: "Josh Weiss, spokesman for American Traffic Solutions, said the company contributed money in solidarity with communities it serves."
How admirable. Note the rhetoric from these companies matches what we hear from politicians: it's not about the money, it's all for the "greater good."
Just because these companies profit millions of dollars every year from these cameras, that's not why they're in business. Just because cities profit millions of dollars every year from these cameras, that's not why they're putting them up. Just because EVERY camera contract has a provision that allows the company to move the cameras to a different intersection if revenue isn't being maximized, no, no, you've got it all wrong, it's not about the money.
I-985 removes the profit motive for photo red light cameras and photo speeding cameras. As a result, we read comments like this from Wenatchee's mayor: "(Mayor Dennis) Johnson said the city's incentive to install cameras is gone if I-985 passes." Oops, looks like the 'no' campaign hadn't distributed its talking points in time for that Wenatchee World story.
As Friday's Spokesman Review story notes: Money from red light cameras would be a small portion - likely less than 10 percent - of the money raised for the traffic decongestion fund under Eyman's proposal. He (Eyman) argues that Spokane's warning that the camera might have to be unplugged is another sign that red light programs have been created to generate revenue. "Under our initiative, they have no profit motive for red light cameras," Eyman said. "Now they will truly analyze which intersections truly does it help and which ones does it maybe hurt, and only put up the cameras at those intersections where it will actually make things better."
Well said.
As reported by the Washington Post: The District's red-light cameras have generated more than 500,000 violations and $32 million in fines over the past six years. City officials credit them with making busy roads safer. But a Washington Post analysis of crash statistics shows that the number of accidents has gone up at intersections with the cameras. The increase is the same or worse than at traffic signals without the devices.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301
844.html
Politicians will never let facts get in the way of maintaining such a lucrative cash cow profit center.
As a citizen wrote at the Kitsap Sun blog: "If the red light cameras worked as designed people would stop running them and there would be NO revenue anyway. (Mayor) Bozeman, if you are planning your budget by counting on people breaking the law you have failed miserably. I for one have a strong issue with government spying on citizens with cameras and this initiative takes away the incentive for greedy cities to install them in the first place. That alone deseves a YES vote on I 985. There is a reason this initiative has very little opposition and no big money campaigns fighting it. Because it has many benefits and no drawbacks (unless you are a failed mayor). There is a reason our capitol newspaper The Olympian endorses this initiative. Vote YES!"
I-985 is a well-thought-out, professional, comprehensive transportation reform proposal; it offers immediate, cost-effective solutions with built-in accountability and oversight by Washington's most trusted elected official.
And rather than raising taxes, I-985 instead funds its common sense policies with transportation-related taxes and charges that we, the citizens, are already paying.
If that's your point of concern, advocate for a law banning the lights. 985 only seeks to do that indirectly, by seizing locally derived funds - however debatable - and sending them to the state. That's a wretched precedent.
As I also said, the cameras I've seen address significant traffic flow issues. And if locals have a problem with them they should object locally or work through their legislature to ban them statewide (assuming that passes legal muster).
An oblique way of dealing with them through the blunt force of a statewide initiative (in theory supposed to be used for serious, pressing issues) doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 26, 2008 09:40 PMTalk about the pot calling the kettle black. All you did was cut and paste attack lines from the NO on 985's website.
Your ignorance about I-985 is stunning. I-985 requires all 281 cities and all 39 counties to optimize traffic flow within their jurisdictions with the best, state-of-the-art traffic light synchronization program available BUT IT IS 100% PAID FOR FROM I-985'S 'REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ACCOUNT.' Contrary to your no talking points, I-985 won't involve a penny of local taxes -- I-985's traffic light synchronization is fully funded -- I-985 requires they do better but provides all the funds necessary for them to do so.
Next time you're going to weigh in on one of our taxpayer protection initiatives, do a little independent research, rather than merely being a stenographer for the PI's ed board - it requires a bit more effort, but then again, you might sound a bit less uninformed next time.
oh, and by the way, I-985 will be approved by the voters by a wide margin: you agree with that, don't you?
http://www.ReduceCongestion.org
Posted by: Tim Eyman, I-985 co-sponsor, proud to be a Yakimaniac on October 26, 2008 09:49 PMI have no idea how 985 will do at the ballot box to be honest with you.
Meanwhile, just because someone writes something you disagree with doesn't mean it's talking points from your ardent opponents. I haven't read the PI's editorial on this topic (or most others this election season) and I could care less what the No on 985 site says. I have looked at neither it nor yours for that matter.
I looked at the issue via my voters guide and the pros and cons I've seen in other press outlets as well as having heard an extended pitch from you on the topic (which I thought was abstractly rather good by the way, as far as political sales jobs go).
I don't like the bulk of this initiative. I think it won't live up to its title and is an affront to local control.
Lastly, my point was that the comment threads are for actual free form responses, not copy & paste jobs. Thanks for being more original this last time, even if I still disagree with you.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 26, 2008 10:05 PMFor a pro-business critique of I-985, go to http://www.researchcouncil.org/publications_container/I-985%20Final%20Brief.pdf This thing will make traffic worse. Vote No on I-985!
Posted by: transpoguy on October 26, 2008 10:14 PMYou've got incredibly naive faith in Olympia if you think that you can advocate for any single well directed law to solve a problem. The middle finger is all Olympia has earned.
Have you seen any reasonable transportation proposals coming from any of our Democrat controlled governments at city or state level? WA governments have not addressed any real transit issues and are simply beholden to lefty/enviro car-hating groups that see gridlock as a feature. OK, so Seattle timed a few lights. Earth shattering. It took until 2008 to get that done. But they also built a useless SLUT rail to nowhere. Maybe by 2108 the I-5 to two lanes through the heart of a downtown corridor will be solved by the WSDOT.
It's not a conservative issue either. It's a practical issue. If government is not working, then it should be either voted out, or barring that, stalled.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 26, 2008 11:11 PMTraffic is an non-linear system, one cannot predict certain outcomes given certain inputs. We all act in our own best interest on the road which is usually contrary to the interests of the system.
Take a look at this: Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt.
Posted by: Rank Stranger on October 27, 2008 05:59 AM• Prods the Legislature and Governor to implement the many recommendations made by State Auditor Brian Sonntag resulting from the authority granted by I-900 to do performance audits of state and local governments
• illustrates the public's support for making reducing traffic congestion a top transportation priority
• opens up carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours – it’s what other states do
• requires local governments to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets
• clears out accidents faster with expanded emergency roadside assistance
• uses a portion (15%) of sales tax revenue from the purchase of new and used vehicles for these policies -- $128 million per year (½% of the state general fund)
• removes the profit motive for red light cameras
• replaces the percentage spent on public art for transportation projects to instead go toward reducing congestion
• institutes critical taxpayer protections on future tolls – guarantees that tolls won’t be diverted to non-transportation spending, dedicating it instead to its project
• empowers the State Auditor to track revenues and expenditures, helping implement I-985’s reforms and reporting regularly to the public on its progress.
I know it may seem odd coming from me, but I do feel that control should always be in the hand of the lowest level possible. The higher up government agencies can direct priorities, but it should be by legislation, and providing funding. It is the local level that needs to have the freedom on how to implement as long as it doesn't go against the constitution (state or national), legislation, or specific policies priorities that are state wide. While transportation is a state-wide issue, the control of traffic lights within cities is not. While HOV lanes may be state level decisions, the local city directives in the initiative are not.
The bottom line is this initiative could have been a winner if it stuck to the HOV issue, but it overreached its control and is trying to force Olympia control of cities. Do we really want Olympia managing our cities?
Posted by: tc on October 27, 2008 07:13 AMTo be honest, I understand your frustration but I don't think the content of your argument against this initiative holds much water.
Also, what Eyman never talks about is that just like his other initiatives, the Legislature can act (at first with a 2/3 majority, later with a 50% majority) to change his initiatives. You can pretty much guarantee that will happen in this case.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 27, 2008 07:22 AMEven his anti-Eyman rant left me less than enamored. And then there was Eric. Eric, I heard the thing about the peak hours and the carpool lanes, too. My thought was why should I not vote for this good initiative just because of a technicality the "elite" found? I couldn't find one. This technicality can easily be thwarted by the legislature as they have done with just about any other citizen initiative they have passed. Seems this time, they may actually have a good reason to "fine tune".
But, no, they will whine and moan and curse Eyman instead of WORKING for the good of the State. They will go out of their way to insure the worst for Eyman and the electorate.
Posted by: swatter on October 27, 2008 07:50 AMNothing has been done to interlink and syncronize signals but teh City has plenty of money rec'd from the State Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax to pay for the fake potted palm trees (made from scrap metal and pilings) and to rehab the Mayor's alley. My motto, when driving in Tacoma is "Plan your trip to maximize the number of right turns."
By the way, he has a "regular" job and works swing shift and drives to and from his handyman work "off peak."
Posted by: JDH on October 27, 2008 08:00 AMIf it's the local government's general fund, then I am 100% for this initiative. There should be no incentive for local governments to implement red light cameras as a general fund cash cow. If that means ceding local control of that revenue, so be it.
HOV lane change, I'm for it.
Force synchronization of traffic lights, I'm for it.
Posted by: Palouse on October 27, 2008 08:26 AMthe initiative's text amends RCW 46.63.110 and adds the following sentence: "Revenue to be deposited into the county or city current expense fund from infractions issued under RCW 46.63.170 shall instead be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act."
RCW 46.63.110 is a lengthy statute and it outlines the various governments and numerous government programs that receive a piece of those
$124 tickets. After all of them get paid off, there's leftover revenue that, under current law (prior to December 4th), goes into the city's general fund (the statute reads: "The balance of the revenue received by the county or city treasurer under this subsection must be deposited into the county or city current expense fund."). Again, that leftover revenue, the profit, will instead go to a dedicated fund used to pay for I-985's traffic congestion relief policies, including fully-funding cities' traffic light synchronization programs required by the measure (a key recommendation from Auditor Sonntag's performance audit).
How far do we take the "removing the profit motive" out of city traffic law enforcement idea? Do we push for a seperate initiative that mandates cities can only allocate X percentage of their police force budgets to traffic cops dedicated to enforcing speed limits?
Me? I'd prefer a single-issue initiative that would eliminate HOV lanes altogether - I suspect it would improve the time it takes for people to get from point A to point B. Let's spend the money to try the experiment.
Posted by: Bret M on October 27, 2008 11:58 AMYou wrote: it cedes local control to the state
Response: yes, the option for cities to perpetually fail at improving traffic flow is replaced with a mandate that they optimize traffic flow with the best, state-of-the-art traffic light synchronization program possible within their jurisdictions -- and all of it is fully funded by this new state account.
yes, I-985 does eliminate the government's opportunity to fail but doesn't it seem a bit strange to hear people defend their right to be incompetent?
Posted by: Tim Eyman, I-985 co-sponsor, www.ReduceCongestion.org on October 27, 2008 12:11 PMI'm already getting the middle finger.
I'm voting for this to give Olympia the middle finger.
Posted by: Andy on October 27, 2008 01:07 PMThe "middle finger" approach may be a necessary trigger for action in Olympia.
That said, a more important vote is one against Sound Transit's Propostion 1. Now THAT is bad transportation policy...
You and I can agree that more needs to be done and disagree on the best way to accomplish this.
You are willing to sacrifice the principal of having localized control vs. state (or even federal) control for the purpose of pushing your idea. Is it really worth it? You didn't seem to address this aspect of the criticism of your initiative.
Posted by: Bret M on October 27, 2008 05:23 PM